Matrix Games Forums

Well just one more opinion here:

I bought SC2 after all the patches ame out. Good game, not great, but good. Something is missing though... I find it a little dry... can't explain it any better than that.

I bought this one this weekend. Great game, lots of fun and I'm still just playing the "normal" setting. Love the u-boat/convoy war! Real suspence there. Again this game just seems to have more... something... more life? Don't know how to describe it.

Definately more "realisticaly" (is that even a word?) WWII.. to me.

No steep learning curve. Easy to pick up when ever you have a gaming chance... these tend to be fewer for us "older" working folks. (Can't wait to retire... only 13 more years... if the wife lets me.)

I'll have to try some PBEM.

Hey Ian.. is there a way to save a PBEM game part way through a turn so you could pass the game to a partner to play the other half of your alliance? Then you could have 3 vs 2 (US/France & UK & USSR vs Ger & Italy).... just a thought.

MikeToth wrote:

if you had the choice between Battlefront and this game, which would you go with??...

Mike:

It seems to me that it's really a choice of what you're looking for. Commander-Europe at War is a strategic scale, fast playing, "beer and pretzels" game very similar to Strategic Command (I can't comment on Strategic Command 2, which I haven't played). Like Strategic Command it's somewhat "bare bones", stripped down to the basics for smooth easy play. Not too much of a "simulation", but with deep and enjoyable gameplay. Oddly enough for a game of this type it is, like Strategic Command, somewhat rigid. There's no stacking (units have to move around each other since they can't occupy the same hex), no movement following combat, no ability to move a unit part of it's movement allowance and then return to it later to complete it's move and (unlike Strategic Command) no undo. This means the player has to pay careful attention to the "fiddely details", though that's no more than a minor annoyance in a game that is very clean, easy to play, and a lot of fun. A good buy, especially if you don't have Strategic Command (or Strategic Command 2?).

Battlefront is on a much smaller scale (Battalions and 1 kilometer hexes), and is much more detailed and "realistic". It tends more toward the "simulation" end of the scale, though it's still quite playable. The system will take longer to learn, but it has a well designed interface and plays smoothly. It too has deep, satisfying and enjoyable gameplay. There are several sigificant improvements compared to the Decisive Battles of World War II system, but it's similar enough that if you like one you will probably like the other.

Overall, it's a question of apples vs. oranges (or Mexican food vs. Thai food, in case you haven't yet had dinner [:D]). Both are delicious, so it's really a question of which you like, or which you're in the mood for at the moment. Maybe you should get them both! [:)] [;)]

Ohhh I love Thai food. You ever try that green Thai hot sause. I bet you can't drink a gallon jug of it in one setting. I think that stuff is hotter than those pumkin peppers of Mexico.

The 2 games are very different.
 
CEaW  is more beer and pretzils.  Battlefront is like an old board wargame with many many features added that could never be done in a board game and could only be done with computing power.
 
Battlefront is better but it ultimately depends what you are after. Every man has different taste [:D]
 
-
 
 
 
 

Hehe you're right Joe 98 why I bet there's even people here who would make it with PARIS HILTON.

Mike

I can't honestly tell you to buy one over the other, because apart from Korsun Pocket all those years ago, I do not own nor have had the inclination to buy the Decisive Battles series.

However I can say these as they are my experiences...

• Korsun Pocket never grabbed me
• This game is superb

I hear people talking about dumb AI...I guess it depends on the player, because I've given the AI one level of advantage (and there are 3 to give) and I'm finding it very difficult.

It took me until Feb '41 to take France! Belgium was no slouch either...sucking in all my reinforcements and sucking my production because of needing to repair units!

I've just survived the initial onslought from Russia, but there are more coming [:(]. But in order to hold the horde of Russians , I have left my West wall very thin....and Africa/Italy are both very, very lightly garrisoned.

Now there are a few points to note here...

• Why have the Allies not taken advantage of my very light Western front? Britain is sitting with about 3 motorised inf and 7 Inf units
• What IS Britain doing with all this lend lease they are getting...'cos no new units seem to be getting built
• Why have they not taken advantage of my very lightly defended back door
• What are the US convoys taking to Britain - it can't be troops, because I'm playing with no fog of war (accidentally DIDN'T turn that on) and there don't seem to be anymore troops going to England
• Why have the US troops NOT left the US?
• Other people rave about the Subs. I stopped producing them because as soon as I attacked a convoy, they were being surrounded by allied units and destroyed....so they would never last more than one attack....quite expensive!

These are questions I don't have the answers to.

However, some people do have issues with it. With my comments (and others) I believe LRRP took the plunge and is dissappointed.

But one thing I can tell you, AI faults or not, I am having a great time playing this. I explained before...this is one of those "one more turns" games that takes me past midnight without noticing.

All I can say is this is a very enjoyable game. It has some faults and shortcomings, but it's bloody good fun...and that's what matters.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Other people rave about the Subs. I stopped producing them because as soon as I attacked a convoy, they were being surrounded by allied units and destroyed....so they would never last more than one attack....quite expensive!

You have to keep attacking convoys or the UK will out produce you, very historical as the Battle of the Atlantic was THE important battle in the European theatre as far as the western allies were concerned.

Well I can't afford them. [:(]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Well I can't afford them. [:(]

Lol I can't resist!

If you didn't buy so damn many games then you probably could afford them. lol roflmao. hehe[:D]

Also one thing to note about the ai and what you have just explained above. If the ai is passive and just sits there as you describe then veteran gamers are going to walk all over this and most veteran gamers don't want passive ai's or ai's that must be given advantages and handicaps beyond believeability. This has been the case of so many games and ai's of the past. Too passive, to the point they don't even make historical runs at you. HOI was really bad about this and the invasion of the US by Japan and D-Day were non existant in them. I didn't have a problem with that, what I had a problem with was the ai was just too passive. HOI 2 did increase the aggressiveness of the AI I will admit. But, Crusader Kings has the best aggressive AI of the series to me. Even EU III's ai is a bit passive for my tastes. The one thing that sounds good from your post is that the AI does have agressive naval tendencies. Although it appears it doesn't have much agression on the ground. Perhaps Iain can beef these up in patches. I'm really surprised to hear bad things about a Slitherine AI though since Spartan was so well done.

Concerning the AI I must raise a BIG issue. If you make an AI too aggressive then you can use a "lure+ambush" strategy against it and that would be even more ugly than an AI that is more cautious before trying to invade.

For example, if UK or USA try to invade France in 1942 a smart human player could then just leave France empty and let them land just to move everything there and crush them. So, therefore it is more normal for the AI to wait at leist until 1943 when it starts getting superior numbers before it tries anything as big as D-Day.

Well, my post wasn't to "plant" the thought in peoples heads that the AI is incompetent. I don't know what it's up to or what it's doing with it's resources. What I do know is that on the ground, it appears to be more competent than most AIs I've came across.

I'm not like other people in that I do not analyze what the AI is doing. Sure sometimes an AI does something that you think was a bit dumb...but aside from that, I don't drill down into it...I don't "setup" situations to see how it would react.

If I'm enjoying the game, it's a good AI.

Also, I am only playing with one level of difficulty to the allies...there are two more. I won't be using those for a while!

Top notch game and plenty of good fun. Levels of difficulty will make it challenging or less so....to what degree deopends on the player picking it up. Play as Axis or Allies. There is just so much game here.